Tuesday, March 22, 2011

I have never in my life voted for the reelection of a President who started a war, even when he did it with the “prior authorization” of Congress. I am not going to change my policy for a President who starts a war which was not in the interest of this nation and who did so without any pretense of authorization of Congress.

Actually, I think the people who are saying that he has committed an impeachable offense are not without some validity. Under the constitution of this nation, the President is not authorized to start military action abroad, which is war even when you don’t call it that, without Congress.

The President presented a letter to Congress in accordance with the War Powers Resolution which he uses as a basis for beginning this new war, but that legislative act authorizes the President to act only “if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.” In this letter Obama claims threat to America by means of a thread of logic that amounts to sheer jackassery.

You can read it for yourself, but it amounts to a) Gadhaffi might defeat the rebels and if he does b) neighboring states might be flooded with refugees which would c) “destabilize the region” in some undefined manner which would d) “jeopardize the national security” of the United States in a manner which he does not spell out.

I hope he is gathering troops to attack the bogeyman under the bed.

At a time when we are desperate to provide funding for the needs of our own people Obama chooses to start spending $1 billion or so fighting a new war against an “enemy” who is about as dangerous to us as a paper clip, with no clearly stated reason for doing so other than that he is taking a madman’s ranting about “killing vermin” at face value, without the support of most of the world’s major nations, with no clearly stated purpose or goal, and with no end game other than a vague promise that we will “turn over the lead role soon.” No decision has been made as to who we are going to turn it over to, or what our remaining role will be.

Additionally, he says that the turn over date will be “determined by our military commanders,” abdicating his responsibility as President and Commander in Chief. The lead of a combined military operation is a policy decision and is not properly left to the military. If he cannot make that decision and has to delegate it to military officers then he is incompetent.

And as has become normal in Washington, we have different people in the White House, in Congress and in the military saying different and conflicting things about what we are doing, why we are doing it and how we are going to get it done. Obama has never been able to keep all of the people in his team on the same page.

Obama will not be opposed by any other Democrat, so I will either vote for a Republican for president in 2012 or I will not vote for that office at all, which will be a first for me.

3 comments:

But you won't vote for Sarah Palin, would you? yuck.... Maybe you can classify her as a Uranian, not a Republican.

But your points are well taken. He (Obama) is becoming more and more removed from what he campaigned on and stood for.

The Constitutionality of his actions mostly - IMO - hinge on the "emergency" in Libya. Does this rise the to the level of necessity for the US? Did Iraq in 2003? Is it acted on according to the War Power Resolution? Barely, at best. Is the justification valid? Tissue thin and stretched to the margins at the breaking point.

This is assuming the WPR is even constitutional, but it was passed according to the Constitutional rules and has not been challenged or been contested.

And the disjointedness and disunity in his administration and Washington (although that's not unusual) is a problem, too. As well as the non-cohesiveness in the "allies" as well. This is a cobbled together ad-hoc mishmash, and not a well planned out campaign. But it's and "emergency", so that's justification. Right....

But we didn't go into Iran when they had protests. And Syria. And Egypt. And China. So what with Libya? It's a small nation that can be slapped without a lot of consequences?Sheesh.

Post a Comment

About Me

I grew up in the Air Force, and served in diesel-electric submarines during the Cold War. I worked in the steel industry until it sort of died in the 80's, then in landscape management until recently, when health issues demanded retirement.

I believe government should intrude in the lives of its citizens to the minumum possible degree, but I also know that it must be big enough to
"get the job done." To me the job of government includes concepts that are usually thought of as liberal such as stringent regulation of necessary monopolies, regulating all business enough to prevent it from becoming predatory, providing necessary
comfort to citizens who are rendered destitute by calamity outside their reasonable control, and protection of our environment and natural resources.